Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
normal people don't need to spend more than 50k a year? so why do we all want to earn more and have different lifestyles. you earn more than 50k a year.
So 50k in nyc is the same as 50k in texas?
you really are lost in space sometimes.
First of all speak for yourself and replace normal with median
We attribute words like poverty and food insecurity to people who spend 20K a year, I dont' think this is accurate based on what the median person spends and their standing in the world. It doesn't make sense when you look at the so called poor person in walmart sporting the newest iphone.
Your definition of poverty is wrong
Financial planners telling us we need 1 Million at retirement are wrong as well
You are falsely comparing those Nordic region countries to the US.
They are not comparable and cannot be used intelligently as a model for the United States. Much smaller populations in each country and they are using their natural resources to support their programs/life styles.
That isn't feasible in the US with our population and size. Nice try though.
You and yours are trying hard to change the US in to some socialistic cesspool to fit your misguided wet dream of what society should be. It won't work here and it hasn't worked anywhere else.
Every system is a form of socialism, maybe you should consider what the words means beyond your biased aimed usage of it. And look at our market system and you might see a bigger picture.
Socialism is a social and economic system characterized by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy, (just what do you think the Stock Market is and is doing ? Public traded companies, controlled by big investors, who have dismantled and consolidated as much as they can under the leadership of Plutocrats.) So on that level, you seem to be all for socialism, but when it comes to considerations for the general population, you'd opt for the indenture and servitude of the people by the wealth holders, because that is exactly what you support when you support the power elite controlling the monopolization of industries. Which become a socialist programming, the only difference is, instead of one major entity controlling everything, it is the select few of the large stock holders and traders, who manipulate the economy as well as the social functions.
Nordic regions are comparable, because the subject is about "standard's of living", if you choose not to make a comparison, that is your choice, and it is your choice to seek to negate to consider their function and how it has comparison when we speak about "standard's of living". They do a better job at protecting their people, and their systems. We should be willing to learn from other nations, not omit them from consideration of places to learn from. We'd be better for it in the whole of it all.
I can tell you have that Republican slant, by the way you use the word socialism, when it comes to anything that considers the general public and its concerns as well as its needs.
First of all speak for yourself and replace normal with median
We attribute words like poverty and food insecurity to people who spend 20K a year, I dont' think this is accurate based on what the median person spends and their standing in the world. It doesn't make sense when you look at the so called poor person in walmart sporting the newest iphone.
Your definition of poverty is wrong
Financial planners telling us we need 1 Million at retirement are wrong as well
funny how a guy who proclaims he makes 135k a year and has supposedly saved 1 million bucks tells others they are doing something wrong if they want to live on more than 50k.
hate to tell you , but the reason we will be living on more than 50k is because we can and not because we are doing something wrong.
who are you to tell others they are doing something wrong if they want a lifestyle that takes more than 50k, which you rediculously didn't even take location in to effect when you made that statement.
Its not the wealthy that's in charge of securing the border! Its not the wealthy that runs "ICE" and allows the illegals to be set free with a court date that means nothing.
Look up the word "LOBBYIST", you might then see why bills get stalled out that keep the doors open, and lobbyist work often for the wealthy and their interest.
funny how a guy who proclaims he makes 135k a year and has supposedly saved 1 million bucks tells others they are doing something wrong if they want to live on more than 50k.
hate to tell you , but the reason we will be living on more than 50k is because we can and not because we are doing something wrong.
who are you to tell others they are doing something wrong if they want a lifestyle that takes more than 50k, which you rediculously didn't even take location in to effect when you made that statement.
Firstly I make about 175K a year
Secondly I disagree that everyone needs to spend 50K for two reasons
1. The vast majority of people in the US live on less than 24K a year
2. Earning 34K a year puts them in the top 1% worldwide
These people aren't poor the point is financial planners and the consensus who claim that we need +1 million for retirement are simply wrong
Your advice is also wrong as I have shown it to be
Secondly I disagree that everyone needs to spend 50K for two reasons
1. The vast majority of people in the US live on less than 24K a year
2. Earning 34K a year puts them in the top 1% worldwide
These people aren't poor the point is financial planners and the consensus who claim that we need +1 million for retirement are simply wrong
Your advice is also wrong as I have shown it to be
Lots of people can and do survive fine on substantially less and are happy with it. Others want than and the moon. There is. Itching wrong with either option, provided it can be funded without requiring others to sustain that lifestyle.
Secondly I disagree that everyone needs to spend 50K for two reasons
1. The vast majority of people in the US live on less than 24K a year
2. Earning 34K a year puts them in the top 1% worldwide
These people aren't poor the point is financial planners and the consensus who claim that we need +1 million for retirement are simply wrong
Your advice is also wrong as I have shown it to be
Do you have any stats to back up #1? I'm not sure what #2 has to do with anything. Over a billion people worldwide don't have adequate access to clean water but that's not really an issue for me currently
Well said, both of you! What I don't understand is if people in the 1950's were perfectly happy with their 900-square foot homes and standard clothing, why people need so much more to be "happy" today?
I would argue a 1950's middle class lifestyle could be supported on one average 8-hour salary today. In fact, the inflation adjusted pricing of many of these items has dropped compared to the 1950's! (food gas/cars, etc, come to mind). The problem is that now everyone wants a 2010's middle class lifestyle, which is incredibly wasteful, while giving people no additional happiness.
RecentGrad is right! Wow!
When I bought my first new car in 2002 a Chevy Cavalier I got it for like 12,000 dollars. Maybe a little more. I got it unloaded to get the price down. Show me where to buy a car for that price today. By the way gas was well under $2.00 a gallon then. It cost me $13.00 or so the first time I filled up my car.
Around that same time I talked to a guy I know who was born in the mid-30's. We gat to talking about his first new car since he noticed I had gotten one. Anyway he told me it was a 56' Chevy and he loved it. So one of my questions from young naïve me was, and I'll never forget the chuckle he gave me, I asked, "So what were your payments like?" He got a kick out of it because he knew I didn't understand and was like a Buck taking a young buck under his wing. He explained to me that "back then" people did not finance cars, they paid up front. In few exceptional cases you might get a 6 month to a year payment set up if it was really necessary. Now in my mind I'm thinking he's not rich and never was, he had just a H.S. education, how can somebody "like that" afford to buy new cars with money up front or cash?
Well, I'm not so naïve anymore.
Buying new cars with cash for non-rich people was not that uncommon even into the 70's as GuyNTexas explains below. New Grad let me assure you we are being raped...BAD!!!!! And gas being less expensive...P-L-E-A-S-E!!!!!!
"I care not what puppet is placed on the throne of England to rule the Empire,... The man that controls Britain's money supply controls the British Empire. And I control the money supply"
Baron Nathan Mayer Rothschild, of the Rothschild international banking cartel
"From reading the posts, perhaps, the first thing to do, in order to come up with a solution, is identify exactly what "income inequity" is.
In 1960, the average income for semi-professional and non-professional jobs was $7060 a year. In 2010, the average income for those same jobs was $45,406. (source of information is athttp://msn.careerbuilder.com/Article...=JS_2146_home1) And, from another source,. the 2010 figure is about 25% too high. Unfortunately, I do not have the link to the other source.
According to another source, http://msn.careerbuilder.com/Article...=JS_2146_home1 executive income has gone up six times in just the last twenty years. Another words, an exec that is making $360,000 today, was only making $60,000 twenty years ago.
It says that executive pay went up an average of 30% each year for the last twenty years while middle-class America has only gotten an average of 12% each year for the last fifty years. And, we're not including bonuses or "Golden Parachutes".
One more area to look at, and this is from my own experience. In 1965 and 1966, I was making $8,000 a year. I was also paying 17 cents a gallon for gasoline. Just today, the current price of gasoline at the corner gas station at the corner is $3.599. To maintain the ratio between income and the cost of gasoline, today's average income should be about $170,000 a year.
In 1973, I was making $14,000 a year, and paying $51 every six months for car insurance. (And, supporting a wife and two kids, while buying a house for $10,000) The last premium I paid on car insurance came out to $147 a month. Back in 1973, the monthly cost was just $8.50. To maintain the ratio of income to car insurance premiums, today's average income should be about$240,000 a year. Want to check with IRS and see just how many "Average Americans" are actually making that much? And, the story is the same no matter what area of expense you look at, groceries, utilities, housing, etc.
That is what is "INCOME INEQUITY". What to do about it is the "$64,000 question". Solutions are sure to be as varied as the people that offer them, but now, you should be able to come up with a better informed opinion.
Now, with regard to the quote, by all means, give your kids every advantage you can. Stress education. Any kind of court record will hurt their chances for a successful career. But, keep in mind...
Let's say that 99% of the next generation gets a master's degree. (No, I don't think that's realistic) It's also not realistic to think that every one of them will get jobs where they will use that degree. There will be a number of them serving at Pizza Hut. A good education and a clean record does not give them a guarantee, but it does improve their chances at a comfortable life." (end quote)
Congratulations the_windwalker, you've earned a spot on my anecdotes collection that's meant to show in a very concrete way the wage stagflation or really deflation experienced for the bottom 80-90 percent of workers the last 30-40 years. I submit only the top 1- 20% percent of wage earners has kept up with cost inflation. That's 2 in 10 workers, certainly NOT middle class, and I think 20% is pushing it. More like the top 10%.
Keep in mind when you read these anecdotes and watch Dr. Warren's lecture think RATIOS. That's exactly my point. For example: "In 1973, I was making $14,000 a year, and paying $51 every six months for car insurance. (And, supporting a wife and two kids, while buying a house for $10,000). How many people now make 40% more IN ONE YEAR than the value of their HOME!!!!: cool::thi nk: GuyNTexas' anecdote illustrates this point very well also.
just because SALARIES havent kept up with INFLATION doesnt mean we should still CLASSIFY based on 1955/1965 numbers.......average salary in 1966..6900...median house price 14k....about 50% right...use those numbers compared to the meadin house....the median salary SHOULD be 130k...not 50k
sorry but this is not 1955 , when 250k was rich...please get with the times...its 2010"(end quote)
"The "inequity" comes in where the expenses have out-paced the income for the average American. While EVERYTHING ELSE has gone up, income for the "middle-class" has stagnated over the last fifty years. That is the problem with the economy today. The "middle-class", the MAJORITY of Americans do not have enough money to keep the economy flowing. Inequity = DIS-PROPORTIONATE".
Show me just one exec whose decisions are actually worth a million dollars a day. Even just a thousand dollars a day. Think about it. As great as he was, even Steve Jobs is now replaced. And, as great as he was for the company, he was not that great for America. Look where your Apple product is made. American jobs?
Ever hear of "The Law of Diminishing Returns"? Keep raising your prices, and eventually, you'll price yourself out of business. That is what Corporate America has done. They have priced the economy out of business.
Take a look at the cost of a kit to put a motor on a bicycle. A 50 CC kit has gone up nearly $100 because of the demand. They're replacing cars with motorized bicycles and scooters. And, the auto industry isn't doing as well as they were ten years ago.
If a cashier is being paid exactly what they are worth, then we're paying far more for everything than it's worth. Gasoline isn't worth $3.599 a gallon. Why are we paying that much? Car insurance is not worth what we're paying. Why are we paying it?"(end quote)
Withou further ado here's the rest of the collection. In my opinion no one who is honest, can think critically and do math can deny what's contained herein:
Pay close attention to the years in the following posts of people who lived in the mid 70's-early 80's:
"Sad. I made $9 an hour during the Summer break in the mid 1980s running telephone lines in office buildings. It was a horrible low paying job then. You know what $9 is worth today adjusted for inflation since 1985. $4.42 cents. That same job today would be need to pay $18.50 per hour. If you have no perspective on how things suck..you'll settle for anything. The USA will look like these ghettos in Brazil before people wake up to this right wing propaganda they've been spoon fed for 30 years."(end quote)
"You know what $9 is worth today adjusted for inflation since 1985. $4.42 cents."
"Just because things were better, doesn't mean they were great. I don't deny that there were folks like yourself. Nevertheless, more opportunity (on average) did exist back then.
During college I worked part time at a warehouse. One of my co workers was a Guyanese who came into the US illegally in '77 or '78 (he later received amnesty under Reagan). He used to tell me how his first job, as an illegal, paid $10.50/hour. In 2006, after he was laid off from a warehouse making 33/hour, we were working for $12/hr. $10.50 in '78 or 12 in 2006. Inflation much?"(end quote)
"Also the wages aren't there and if you compare that with inflation it just doesn't work.
In 1980, I had an entry level job as a sound engineer with a local independent TV station earning $5.00 per hour.One paycheck paid my rent and utilities and auto insurance and the other 3 paycheckseach month were disposable income.
An entry level job today pays $8.50 to $10 per hour and even at $10 per hour it takes 2 paychecks to cover the cost of rent, utilities and auto insurance (and don't forget in 1980 $10 -- or two hours of work -- paid for 2 tickets to the cinema show, a tank full of gasoline and something to eat after the movie -- the cost of two movie tickets now is over $20)."
(end quote)
"The guy is a typical, narrow minded moron who probably has a picture of Reagan on his wall and NOBAMA stickers on his car. He really thinks in this world, with gas being $3.50 per gallon and food twice what it was 5 years ago that $8.50 per hour is "competitive" How friggin stupid can anyone be? I was making more than that in 1981 in a part time job. I started out at $14.00 per hour in 1984 when I bought my first house for $42,000!
He has NO RESPECT for his employees. None.(end quote)
"No. I'm really disagreeing with .. not missing your point. And those numbers don't tell a very accurate story, and the proof is demonstrated by the drop in net worth of middle income earners as their debt has increased significantly, while earnings have declined relative to inflation.
By most measurable data points, the middle income class has been dying a very slow, incremental death for 4 decades because the costs on high ticket items have increased more rapidly than the either the inflation rate or rates of increases in income. To further compound the problem, average income levels have failed to keep pace with the inflation rate itself. Much of this goes unnoticed because of it's slow incremental nature (like growing old). But if you are old enough, and still maintain your mental faculties, you can't be bull $hted into believing what you are trying to say here.
As just one example, in 1977, I bought a brand new Pontiac Trans Am for $5200. And since it was my first car purchase, I suspect I was clubbed like a baby seal (paid full MSRP), as I simply asked how much, and said OK (later I learned the error of this way to purchase automobiles )
Now today, that car is no longer available, but a comparable car "Chevy Camero SS" is. And a similarly configured model is around $35,000 MSRP. Which is almost double the adjusted for inflation number of $18,700 that Camero should cost relative to the $5200 Trans Am of 1977.
My income back then was 14,000 or just shy of 3 times what the car cost ... if you apply that same formula to the $35,000 Camero today, I'd have to earn roughly $100,000 per year to maintain the same standard (drive the same car) as my $14,000 income provided then. I was not wealthy then .. I was a 20 year oldworking in a warehouse driving a forklift. And I don't think there are many 6 figure forklift drivers around today ...I would say, the 40-50K range would be the upper limit ... or roughly the same as my $14,000 would be, adjusted for inflation.
This is one example, and almost any big item ... car, house, etc. works out to be the same. Some other items like Healthcare have dramatically exceeded those rates exponentially compared to 1977 where mine was absolutely free and first rate, including dental.
Now, add to this the higher taxes, social security withholding, and medicare ... all of which have exceeded the inflation rate (and don't let anyone BS you into believing it hasn't), means that the net spending power of your income has declined dramatically over the past 30+ years. (See video below she documents ALL this IN DETAIL)
Now around about that same time frame, my step father worked for one of the US Government agencies earning roughly in the 50-60K range, and at the time, that was very good money, but not even close to RICH & Wealthy .... but adjusted for inflation, that comes out to around $200+K now. The house he purchased then at $50,000 appraised for $480,000 in 2004-5 even though the adjusted for inflation value would have only dictated a $155,000 figure ... 3 times the inflation rate!! By the time he retired in the late 90's, his income may have doubled, yet his house increased by 6-8 fold. What does that tell you?
Now if you are following me here ... this is where it gets real hairy ... if you take a Quarter ... 25 cents ... from say 1964 (the last 90% silver Quarter) that 25 cents equates to $1.76 in 2010 value. But guess what? Today's melt value of that sliver quarter is about $3.70 which is again more than double the published inflation rate ....
So what does that all mean? It means very simply, that the value of your money is worth about half of what it's claimed to be worth, even after being adjusted for inflation .... and all it takes is to actually look at the historical costs of items like cars, and houses and health care costs from the late 60's to today, and also the median incomes. You see that the purchasing power has indeed declined. And this is a result of the devaluation of the currency (a hidden tax).
So when it comes to buying power, there has been a continuous decline that doubles the the inflation rates admitted .. which is why the middle class really doesn't exist for all practical purposes today.
There are the ultra wealthy, and the rest. The $250kers are just at the higher end of that rest of us, and they are the last of the upper middle class, and the next in line to fall ... apparently, much to delight of many who think that they are members of the Wealthy Club, and must fall for the sake of everyone.
I suppose this proves that indeed, misery loves company."(end quote)
"Which is ... I might add .... $17/hr is roughly $6 per hour in 1980 dollars adjusted for inflation, or $12,000 per year. Though that doesn't quite tell the whole story, since there are many costs that have increased way more than 3 fold, which makes me question the inflation calculations today.
For example, a brand new 1980 Chevrolet Camaro Z28 cost about $6,500 in 1980, while a 2013 Camaro SS Coupe runs close to $40,000 ... which is double the calculated inflation rate .... so a person buying a new camaro back then who was making $10/hr in 1980, would have to make $60/hr today, to be in the same financial situation.
That's just one example of many .... my regular bills back then were ... $12 phone, $25 electricity, no cable, no internet, no cell phone .... and rent was $250. My total living expenses (living alone) was less than $300 .. and food costs were about $20 per week, give or take. Gas was about .65 - .75 cents per gal as were cigarettes about .75 .... and you could get a beer in a bar for .50
I never had to juggle bills .... I lived quite well, drove a brand new car, went out on weekends regularly, never had to deny myself anything, and still managed to stash a couple hundred bucks away in a savings account every month ... on $10/hr
Don't try to live that way today ..... people who have no direct experience of what things were like back then, really have no idea how badly they are "taking it" today. No idea!"
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
: cool:
$10.50 in '78 or 12 in 2006. Inflation much?"(end quote)
) 
